Actually it is. Whilst promixity and general interconectedness may *suggest* that there is a way for a disrupted spine to influnces how your liver is doing, you stomach contains a well understood, demostratbly effective, method of extracting stuff from things you put in it and distrubtuing it around your body (even from a very primitve more goes in than comes out point of view) so putting something that easily disolves in your mouth in the hope that it will be absorbed and have an effect somewhere else is much more logical that wiggling bits of your back in the hope you’ll stop having those bouts of peeing green slime or whatever.

Ditto mainstream medicine. Any migraine sufferer can tell you about a GP telling them not to eat cheese and thinking that that’s the problem solved. And doctors did think until recently that the only reasonable explanation for more than one infant mortality in the same family was murder. But they’re no reasons to write off the entire field.

Yeah, but there’s still a lot of quack claims made about chiropractic too. Relief of back pain, headaches etc? Sure. But I wouldn’t want to try chiropractic as a cure for cancer.

Tim’s absolutely right. But one of my pet hates (yes, another one) is that so many doctors don’t keep up with what has been proven effective, so, for instance, lots of doctors still regard chiropractic as quackery, despite the fact that it was proven effective about fifteen years ago now. If they’re going to insist (rightly) that everything be evidence-based, then they have a duty to keep up with the evidence. Because, every time they call something “quackery” that isn’t, they undermine their own case when they’re criticising genuine quacks.